It's all Bush's fault. Bush lied and people died. Everything Bush does is wrong. That, in a nutshell, is the message of Marc Pitzke's recent series of articles on the Katrina anniversary.

Of course we've reported on SPIEGEL ONLINE's star Amerika-Korrespondent before. He's well known for his slavish dedication to seeking out and reporting on only the most miserable, ugly and hopeless aspects of American society. Pitzke's articles are something like a crude literary version of "The Jerry Springer Show." They are written to please a readership that desperately wants to believe that, because it rejects European-style big government and socialist-democracy, the USA is a nation drowning in poverty and social injustice.

It is difficult to label Pitzke a journalist because his opinionated brand of campaign journalism resembles propaganda more than anything else. Unfortunately, most Germans take SPIEGEL ONLINE very seriously and don't always recognize that they are being spoon-fed one-sided refuse. Take, for example, Pitzke's latest piece, entitled "Bush's Cynical Gestures." He writes:

"And they are those 37 million who continue to live in poverty in the entire USA, those who Bush promised to care for after "Katrina." Because this number was reported by the Census Bureau, as fate would have it, as Bush was kneeling in the Cathedral. According to it, one in every eight Americans is "poor."

Ignored the Chasm in His Own Land

That is about as many as in the previous year. But while the poverty rate remained constant, the average income of the overall population rose. That means: The majority are doing better - but "the poor are getting poorer," as the independent Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analyzed. In the context of the economic upturn that was "the worst performance in recent decades." The last year in which the US poverty rate sank was 2000: It fell to 11.7% under Bush's predecessor Bill Clinton.

More still: The number of Americans without any health insurance climed from 45.3 to 46.6 million according to Census figures. The health care costs of a family of four increased by almost 10 percent. Those hit hardest: The poorest.

A literal sign of poverty: A President who wants to democratize the world, yet stubbornly ignores the growing chasm in his own country despite all the "Katrina" speeches."

Of course, Bush was kneeling in the Cathedral as the announcement came that his nation was sinking in poverty. A perfectly conceived, made-for-Hollywood image of Bush's supposed cynicism (Michael Moore, George Clooney and Oliver Stone would be proud) and another example of how important it is for media outlets like SPIEGEL to drum the image of Bush as hypocritical religious zealot/poseur into the minds of receptive European audiences over and over and over again.

Now to the question of poverty. Pitzke tells us that under Bill Clinton (when America was still happy-land), the US poverty rate sank to 11.7% in 2000 and the world was in order. Under Bush, who Pitzke claims has ignored the problem and allowed the poor to languish, the poverty rate has supposedly skyrocketed out of control, with the poor getting poorer as the rich get richer. So let's look at the numbers: Pitzke writes that one out of eight Americans is living in poverty. That would represent 12.5% (the actual figure is 12.6%) of the population, or less than 1% more than the 2000 level. This despite the massive economic burden of September 11, two wars and Hurricane Katrina. Add to that consistently strong economic growth over the past few years (compared with virtual stagnation in Germany) and the 4.6% unemployment rate (in Germany it is over 11%) and the Bush performance doesn't seem so shabby after all...

"But what happened? Nothing. Instead the Republican controlled Congress refused an increase in a minimum wage for the "working poor" that has remained unchanged for ten years, and, in the same breath reduced the archaic inheritance tax on multi-millionaires to virtually zero, an election gift for wealthy party donors.

Even smaller measures concentrated on "Katrina" zones have turned out to be empty promises. Bush announced financial aid (recovery accounts) for evacuees, an "urban settlement law" and an enterprise zone on the Gulf. Only the latter came about - but, as columnist Jonathan Alter reports, the zone has mostly benefited "southern firms owned by Republican party donors who want to earn some money in New Orleans.

Not Recovered from the Katrina Depression

But Americans do indeed slowly seem to be waking up. In a current poll, 58% declared themselves "not satisfied" with the rebuilding process after "Katrina;" 51% found that Bush had not kept his promises. In another poll 64% disapproved of the country's general course. Bush's popularity remains around 39% - Ratings that have not recovered since the "Katrina"-depression.

"The government cannot do this job alone," Bush said yesterday and called on the people of New Orleans to help themselves and to take personal responsibility upon themselves, as if that weren't the only thing with which they had survived to this point. It was a perfect summary of the Republican ideology of the "small state" - and new evidence of the wise old saying that the Americans are better than their leaders."

Indeed. Ideology is what it is all about. If we are to believe Pitzke, the evil Republicans in the administration and Congress have done nothing but leave the poor of New Orleans (and America) to die while providing kickbacks to wealthy donors, all for the sake of their "small government" worldview. Of course Pitzke makes absolutely no mention of the $122 BILLION in aid approved months ago by the "Republican Congress" and President Bush. No need to trouble readers with a little detail like that. He makes no mention of the fact that, in the United States, a wide range of federal, state, local and private charity programs exist to assist the poor with everything from healthcare to housing to basic needs. He also makes absolutely no mention of the incompetence (and re-election of) Mayor Ray Nagin nor does he mention the failings of Louisiana Governor Blanco. And why would he? They are Democrats and can do no wrong. In the world of carefully selected stories written and prepackaged to satisfy pre-existing worldviews, uncomfortable facts that upset the pre-fabricated media reality are left by the wayside.

"I take full responsibility for the federal government's response, and a year ago I made a pledge that we will learn the lessons of Katrina and that we will do what it takes to help you recover. (Applause.) I've come back to New Orleans to tell you the words that I spoke on Jackson Square are just as true today as they were then.

Since I spoke those words, members of the United States Congress from both political parties came together and committed more than $110 billion to help the Gulf Coast recover. I felt it was important that our government be generous to the people who suffered. I felt that step one of a process of recovery and renewal is money. (...)

But I also want to remind you that the federal government cannot do this job alone, nor should it be expected to do the job alone. This is your home; you know what needs to be done. And a reborn Louisiana must reflect the views of the people down here and their vision and your priorities."

Pitzke interprets Bush's statement as an ideologically-motivated call for "the people of New Orleans" to take on more responsibility, exercise more self-reliance and expect less assistance from government. In fact, Bush was letting his audience know that the federal government needs help from everyone (including state, local and private institutions and citizens) and plans to respect their views in the rebuilding process as opposed to imposing its will from the top down. Furthermore, it is nothing short of laughable that Pitzke would accuse Bush, who has been anything but fiscally conservative, of trying to push a traditional "Republican" agenda of smaller government. There are many things that one could accuse President Bush of. Being a champion of smaller government and limited federal spending is unfortunately not one of them.

But this is not about reality, it is about ideology. Not the ideology of President Bush, but the ideology of Marc Pitzke, his editors in Hamburg, and the readers back home in SPIEGEL-land. It is an ideology of activist Socialism that can only survive if it can convince its captive audience that life is much worse outside the prison walls. The problem is that more and more Germans realize that they can do better elsewhere and are fleeing the grand social experiment. In the meantime, little will change as long as cynical hacks like Marc Pitzke continue to pollute the media landscape with their hackneyed tripe. The sad truth is that this sort of biased propaganda (that passes for legitimate news on the United States) goes largely unchallenged in the German mainstream and many Germans believe it to be entirely accurate, balanced and reliable. And then outside observers wonder why Germans and Americans can't understand one another...

The Katrina disaster came announced, the US President was also warned. Classified video material now shows how Bush was informed in insistent appeals of the looming threat by representatives of the emergency management agency FEMA - and ignored them. more..." (emphasis ours)

The article went on to point out that this all occurred on August 28, 2005. Well, we at Davids Medienkritik were planning to point out that Bush made this statement that very same day:

"THE PRESIDENT: This morning I spoke with FEMA Undersecretary Mike Brown and emergency management teams not only at the federal level but at the state level about the -- Hurricane Katrina. I've also spoken to Governor Blanco of Louisiana, Governor Barbour of Mississippi, Governor Bush of Florida, and Governor Riley of Alabama. I want to thank all the folks at the federal level and the state level and the local level who have taken this storm seriously. I appreciate the efforts of the governors to prepare their citizenry for this upcoming storm.

Yesterday, I signed a disaster declaration for the state of Louisiana, and this morning I signed a disaster declaration for the state of Mississippi. These declarations will allow federal agencies to coordinate all disaster relief efforts with state and local officials. We will do everything in our power to help the people in the communities affected by this storm.

Hurricane Katrina is now designated a category five hurricane. We cannot stress enough the danger this hurricane poses to Gulf Coast communities.I urge all citizens to put their own safety and the safety of their families first by moving to safe ground. Please listen carefully to instructions provided by state and local officials." (emphasis ours)

Now you can say what you want about Bush, FEMA and how the Katrina disaster was managed. It's obvious federal and local authorities made numerous, costly mistakes. Despite that, it is patently false to claim that Bush ignored the problem or was "left cold" by warnings. His statements clearly contradict that.

But the story doesn't end there. As in so many other cases we've documented, SPIEGEL has once again made "adjustments" to the text. This time changes were made after the story was removed from the homepage. It now looks like this:

Note that the piece has an entirely new title: "Dam Breaks in New Orleans: Bush was Warned." And guess what: The last three words (- and ignored them) before "mehr..." are missing along with the hyphen. Now why might that be? Is this SPIEGEL ONLINE's way of silently admitting it was wrong? Perhaps someone at the magazine realized that the headline and three words since deleted were contradicting later segments of the article stating that Bush was "concerned" and "asking questions about reports on the levees." So where is the correction notice?

This is just further evidence that SPIEGEL ONLINE is willing to play fast and loose with reality when it comes to reporting on the United States. Facts are often manipulated and ignored as long as the story serves to vilify and undermine the Bush administration. The ends justify the means and journalistic standards are left by the wayside. In the case above, obvious facts were ignored to provide the desired headline and opening. It would seem that at some later point an alert editor caught and corrected the problem well after the story had been removed from the homepage. Better late than never as they say...

UPDATE #2: Apparently, most of the SPIEGEL article in question is a poorly translated mish-mash of segments from an AP story. The end of the SPIEGEL article advertises it is an AP piece by John Solomon. Have a look at that AP piece, here is another version and another. (If anyone can find the unabridged original please let us know.)

The SPIEGEL piece (very) roughly follows the English original until the following lines are reached:

"The White House and Homeland Security Department urged the public Wednesday not to read too much into the footage.

"I hope people don't draw conclusions from the president getting a single briefing," Bush spokesman Trent Duffy said, citing a variety of orders and disaster declarations Bush signed before the storm made landfall. "He received multiple briefings from multiple officials, and he was completely engaged at all times."

Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said his department would not release the full set of videotaped briefings, saying most transcripts - though not the videotapes - from the sessions were provided to congressional investigators months ago.

"There's nothing new or insightful on these tapes," Knocke said."

But these lines (the stated position of the Bush administration) are conspicuously missing. And where have they gone? To the end of the article of course! To the final paragraph to be exact. And that's not all: Numerous segments of the AP piece are simply omitted. What is left over has been extensively cut-and-pasted.

"And as we think about rebuilding New Orleans, surely God is mad at America, he's sending hurricane after hurricane after hurricane and it's destroying and putting stress on this country. Surely he's not approving of us being in Iraq under false pretense. But surely he's upset at black America, also. We're not taking care of ourselves. We're not taking care of our women. And we're not taking care of our children when you have a community where 70 percent of its children are being born to one parent.

We ask black people: it's time. It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild a New Orleans, the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans. And I don't care what people are saying Uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day.

This city will be a majority African-American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way; it wouldn't be New Orleans." (emphasis ours)

Of course Stern probably won't make a big deal out of "hero" Nagin's comments. No need to criticize his lunatic statements now that he is officially a cannonized martyr. No need to mention those school buses either. After all, it's all Bush's fault...

Statistics
released by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals suggest
that fewer than half of the victims of Hurricane Katrina were black,
and that whites died at the highest rate of all races in New Orleans.

...the state's demographic information suggests that whites in New Orleans
died at a higher rate than minorities. According to the 2000 census,
whites make up 28 percent of the city's population, but the Louisiana
Department of Health and Hospitals indicates that whites constitute
36.6 percent of the storm's fatalities in the city.

African-Americans
make up 67.25 percent of the population and 59.1 percent of the
deceased. Other minorities constitute approximately 5 percent of the
population and represented 4.3 percent of the storm's fatalities.

Overall
for the state, 658 bodies have been identified. Forty-seven percent
were African-American and 42 percent were Caucasian. The remaining
bodies were either non-black minorities or undetermined.

An additional 247 victims have not been identified, so their demographic information has not been released. (Source)

How would you expect the German media to react if two weeks of violent rioting broke-out in the United States and President George W. Bush failed to respond to the crisis for the first ten days?

Certainly, one could expect numerous articles pointing to the "social decay" of the American system and the dangers of too little "state" and too great a reliance on "free markets" and "capitalism" as was the case during the Katrina tragedy. And, without a doubt, one could absolutely expect to see the cover pages of magazines like "Der Spiegel" and "Stern" filled with the usual images of condescending Schadenfreude, accompanied by headlines such as, "America in Flames" or "Riots: The Forgotten Americans" or "Chaos in America: Social Injustice Explodes".

One could also expect, with a high degree of certainty, that the riots would be interpreted as evidence that George W. Bush is under further "massive pressure" and on the brink of failure and impeachment. The media would scream ceaselessly about the fact that Bush did not react immediately and wonder over and over and over again: "Where was the cavalry?!" Bush would again be portrayed as the purveyor of a cold, heartless and unjust political vision founded upon neo-conservative, capitalist principles that have supposedly left America devoid of "social justice". The media would further point the finger at the Bush administration and accuse it of complacency despite "having known" conditions were rife for social unrest.

But none of that happened. Why? Because the riots took place in France and the president was Jacques Chirac. Here are the cover pages from "Der Spiegel" and "Stern" during the riots:

German Magazine Covers during the French Riots: Only one cover (bottom-right) even mentioned France in a small subheadline...

Even more "conservative" magazines like "Focus" also took little if any note of the riots on their cover-pages. Why might that be? Why are the French treated with such discretion while the Americans are attacked, impugned and abused at every opportunity? Why are the same German media that so diligently seek-out scandal and disorder in the United States so content to downplay and even ignore such issues in France?

The answer to these questions is simple: Ideology. The French elites have grown to be the greatest intellectual allies of the German elites. They stand for the same model of "social democracy" and resistance to what is perceived to be "American-style" global capitalism. To criticize the failings of the French would be to criticize ones' own failings. To expose the many flaws of the French "social" system would be to expose the many flaws of the German "social" system. To overemphasize the failure of the French to integrate minorities and end discrimination in housing and the workforce would be to overemphasize the same failings in Germany. To question the viability and stability of French multiculturalism in the face of a rapidly increasing Muslim minority would be to question the same in Germany. To scrutinize the impacts of mass unemployment in Paris would be much like scrutinizing the impacts of mass unemployment in Berlin.

And so German media don't criticize, expose, overemphasize, question or scrutinize the French as they would the Americans.

And when people come to this site and ask us what we mean by "bias" in the German media, we can point to no better example than the recent lack of salacious, drooling coverage of the French riots that one could have expected with absolute certainty had they taken place in New York or Los Angeles. One need only look at the cynical, Schadenfreude-filled reaction to Katrina in the German media to erase any doubt about that.

Of course they should, but don't hold your breath. The same sort of double-standard applies to the German left's treatment of Putin as well. Here's the bottom line: Bashing America sells. Bashing Russia and France doesn't.

And here is a great question for Trittin, Schroeder, Stern and all the other Euro-snobs who exploited Katrina to push their big-state agenda: If the European model is really so superior to the American, how is it that tens-of-thousands of people, many of them weak and elderly, died in France and Germany while the supposedly caring Eurocrat elite, the pride and joy of their respective social democratic systems, were soundly asleep at the switch or simply away from their desks? Well over ten times more people died, but no one has the courage to point out that the European lunatic fringe is once again wallowing in American misery in an attempt to distract attention from and forget about the very real misery it has helped to create right in its own backyard. We don't even need to mention the ongoing economic quagmire...

Put another way, the Euro-snob elite in nations that have proven to be abject failures in dealing with natural disasters (and most other matters) should hardly be throwing stones when they themselves live in a particularly brittle glass house. And don't look now, but it looks like they'd better get some fire insurance for that house too...

Note for readers: Be sure to scroll down and read more on this topic. Or just click here. Also be sure to check No Pasaran for continued coverage of France. Make sure you read Erik's latest piece on a recent encounter with some Latin American babes, one of whom refused to drink Coca-Cola because of the Iraq war. Also have a look at this outstanding article on the Checkpoint Charlie monument's removal by Benjamin Duffy. (Article by Ray D.)

Of course, the German media report on the riots of muslim youths in France; but with few exceptions, the tone is mostly matter-of-fact.

No comparison to the German media's excitement when looters ran rampant in New Orleans (1, 2, 3).

At the very least, I don't expect an article like this one, expressing Schadenfreude ("joy and sympathy beat simultaneously in my chest")over the riots in France quite like in the case of New Orleans.

Anyway, the German media miss an important aspect of the French riots:

...we kept hearing all this stuff ever since September 11th, you know, the Muslim street is going to explode in anger. Well, it finally did, and it was in Paris, not in the Middle East.Mark Steyn in an interview on Hugh Hewitt's show (via Instapundit)

One of the most troubling aspects of Germany's reaction to the Katrina tragedy is just how widespread the outbursts of Schadenfreude and the ridiculous blame diatribes have been. It seemed to begin with Germany's lunatic-fringe Environmental Minister Juergen Trittin, who blamed disasters like Katrina on America's George W. Bush's environmental policy and rejection of Kyoto. Shortly thereafter, "Stern" magazine, "Die Zeit" and Chancellor Schroeder chimed in and blamed America's lack of big-state Socialism for the extent of the disaster. Yet others were simply happy to see America take a hit.

Thankfully, there was someone sane in the midst of all the finger-pointing and conspiracy-spinning to record it all. That someone is Jeffrey Gedmin, and his article on the perverse German reactions to Katrina is undoubtedly the most comprehensive and informative piece written on the subject. Mr. Gedmin has kindly granted Davids Medienkritik permission to print his work in the English original.

"Save Your Comments

By Jeffrey Gedmin

A friend of mine, born and raised in the south, a supporter of George W. Bush, has told me several times how disturbed she is by New Orleans. She finds it shocking that the U.S. government responded so slowly, and above all, left the most vulnerable, mostly poor African-Americans, to fend for themselves. Follow the U.S. commentary and you'll know that America is at the beginning of an agonizing debate, likely to last longer than the time it will take to rebuild New Orleans.

You can learn a bit about this in the German commentary about Hurricane Katrina. But that's not all. What an orgy it has been! It started with environment minister Jürgen Trittin's low blow about "climate polluter headquarters" USA. Things like Katrina will not happen, opined Professor Trittin, if only Americans would protect the environment. The Chancellor quickly joined the pack, of course. He says if only the Americans had a bigger state they could have been spared their misery. Henryk Broder found a gem, an American-hating lady from Chemnitz, who wrote to a large daily about Katrina. Her view: "A religious person could get the impresson that this is the wrath of God." My favorite, though, is the one from a fellow from Berlin-Zehlendorf, who wrote to the Berliner Morgenpost about the "war criminals" in the US government who "could care less about the deaths of blacks or foreigners." For a more sophisticated formulation of this thesis, see the front page editorial this week from Stephan-Andreas Casdorff in the Tagesspiegel who did his readers the favour of inserting himself into the brain of the U.S. President. What did Mr. Casdorff discover? That the heartless George Walker Bush would rather attend a business dinner in San Diego or play guitar on his ranch than care for fellow Americans in their hour of need.

Still, the "Armin Meiwes prize for Katrina commentary." names in honor of the "Cannibal of Rotenburg," goes to the salivating fellow from the taz who admits to feelings of "joy" over all the death and destruction. Philipp Mausshardt says he is happy that Katrina hit the United States.

A few quick points to all of this. First, I am pretty sure God did not order Katrina to punish the United States. Second, I am certain the United States needs a more serious debate about global warming. So does Germany. According to the United Nations, since the 1940s "the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased." Scientists are also divided, incidentally, on the cause of recent violent hurricanes. Third, a note to the outgoing Chancellor. Yes, we all love Vater Staat, but if bigger government were the answer to natural distasters, then how come your buddies in Paris did not fare better in preventing the deaths of 15.000 during the heat wave that hit France a couple years ago? Fourth, the next time the storm of a century ravages an area half the size of Germany within 24 hours, and this by the way after repeated false alarms, I have no doubt that the editors of the Tagesspiegel will roll out their master plan for a faster, more effecient, more comprehensive and more humane response than the monster Bush.

Finally, we Americans are indeed shocked and embarrassed by what has happened. There will be investigations, commissions, conferences, documentaries and books examining what should have been done differently by local, state and federal authorities. A new debate about race and poverty in America has also begun. Among the recriminations, there is introspection. Does anyone else want to get a kick in while we are on the ground?"

Indeed. But let us be clear on another point: Not all Germans share the sentiments described above. We would like to believe that most Germans do not and that those with perverse reactions are a minority. But we can also not ignore the fact that most Germans have been less than enthusiastic about helping Americans in their time of need. We would like to report the very opposite. After all, both David and I are German citizens, (David is a full German and I am dual US-German), and we would like to report that Germany has generously supported the hurricane victims. But the opposite is true. Most Germans simply assume that America is rich and doesn't need the help and yet others obviously view America with disdain and have simply chosen not to help.

The German government has sent some aid, and President Bush has thanked Chancellor Schroeder for the assistance, but apparently there is a customs issue with a portion of it that the German media is blaming on the US. This is curious indeed considering the fact that German private industry has absolutely no problem exporting things into the United States. So why the holdup?

Anyway, Jeff's article is necessary to raise awareness on the ugly side of German society, politics and media. And in that we are fully on his side. Keep up the good work Jeff!

Hard to believe but true: Many in Germany's media "elite" believe that George W. Bush has intimidated the US media into docile submission. They believe that, for the most part, the American "mainstream media" has become a willing servant to the Republican agenda.

"The wave of patriotism after September 11, 2001 damaged
American journalism more than it benefited it. Now the country has gone through
a new key experience: Hurricane Katrina destroyed thousands of existences –
however the television reporters have this time found their own voice and are
losing their inhibitions to bite.

The state-serving corset burst along with the dams in New
Orleans that many journalists – intimidated by government propaganda, bloggers
and conservative interest groups – had put on. George W. Bush’s political backing
in the media collapsed.

Even his reliable mouthpiece, the 24 hour news
broadcaster Fox News could no longer ignore that the government leadership left
the mostly minority populace of New Orleans in the lurch.”

What a profound and lucid argument. Yes indeed...wasn't it clear all along? A dark cabal of government propagandists, bloggers and conservative interests have been intimidating the US media into submission ever since September 11. The mainstream media has been forced to kowtow to the interests of mighty emperor Bush. What nuance...what attention to detail...what bullshit!

Let's be serious for a moment: Ms. Palm never provides her sophisticated Eurosnob readers a single concrete example of "government propaganda." She never specifies which "bloggers" are "intimidating" journalists or how. She never mentions the existence of thousands of widely-read, left-wing blogs in the United States that have been in operation for years now with an audience of tens of millions or more. She never mentions which "conservative interest groups" have supposedly cowed American journalists into fearful submission nor does she provide a single shred of evidence that such intimidation has ever taken place.

Ms. Palm also never mentions the fact that conservatives, the people who allegedly control the media, are vastly underrepresented in American journalism, and, according to numerous recent studies, are significantly outnumbered by liberals throughout virtually all sectors of the US media. She never stops to consider how a Michael Moore could earn millions and win an Oscar in a media culture supposedly dominated by conservative intimidators. Finally, she never mentions the results of a major study done by Columbia University's Project for Excellence in
Journalism in late 2004 that found
the following:

"In the closing weeks of the 2004 presidential race, the period dominated by
the debates, President George W. Bush has suffered strikingly more negative
press coverage than challenger John Kerry, according to a new study released
today by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

"When it came to the campaign, on the other hand, the criticism that George Bush
got worse coverage than John Kerry is supported by the data.2 Looking across all media, campaign
coverage that focused on Bush was three times as negative as coverage of Kerry
(36% versus 12%) It was also less likely to be positive (20% positive Bush
stories, 30% for Kerry)."

But how could that be? Hasn't Bush thoroughly intimidated the media since September 11? Oh wait...maybe he has the journalism program of Columbia University under his thumb too...yeah, that must be it...yeah...he must have dispatched a gang of violent, right-wing reactionary bloggers to scare them all...oh yeah...

Welcome to Fantasy Land...

Here's the bottom line: Ms. Palm was either profoundly uninformed or she had on a particularly thick pair of ideological blinders when she sat down to write this article. Either way, she clearly occupies a fantasy world born of her own prejudice and ignorance. The problem is that many in the German (and European) media elite are living on the very same planet. SPIEGEL ONLINE has already done several misleading pieces to promote the "gleichgeschaltet" myth in German society. NDR ran a particularly nasty piece of bias along the same lines. And the phenomenon is hardly confined to Germany: Take Matt Wells at the BBC. His recent editorial, entitled "Has Katrina saved US media?", is strikingly similar in tone. Here are excerpts:

"Amidst the horror, American broadcast journalism just might have grown its
spine back, thanks to Katrina.

National politics reporters and anchors here come largely from the same race
and class as the people they are supposed to be holding to account.

They live in the same suburbs, go to the same parties, and they are in debt
to the same huge business interests.

Giant corporations own the networks, and Washington politicians rely on them
and their executives to fund their re-election campaigns across the 50 states.

It is a perfect recipe for a timid and self-censoring journalistic culture
that is no match for the masterfully aggressive spin-surgeons of the Bush
administration."

What’s a depressed German Big-Government Socialist to do? Gerhard Schroeder and Joschka Fischer will soon be sent packing by voters after seven years of economic bumbling and unfulfilled promises. The Conservative CDU is set to assume the Chancellery and the lions-share of the power. The German left continues to squabble as it splits into ever more radical splinter groups. So where does the misery end…?

Stern: Socialist "Solidarity" Would Have Stemmed the Katrina Tragedy

Well, if you are like Stern magazine editor-in-chief Andreas Petzold, you can always fall back on a time-tested remedy for Socialist sadness: You can look down your nose at the United States and remind yourself how awful things must be in the land of brutal, Darwinian capitalism. You can also forget about your own nation's mass unemployment and stagnant economy by politicizing the suffering of others. And that is exactly what Petzold decided to do in his most recent front-page editorial, named “Somalia in America’s South.”

"We Show What Bush Didn't Want to See." (A full-page ad Stern is running in German newspapers to promote the magazine's current edition on Hurricane Katrina.)

And this will surprise you: Petzold blames the lack of a large, socialized government in America for the tragic aftermath of Katrina. He also blames privatization, class differences, poverty and gun ownership for turning the American South into what he describes as another "Somalia". Of course, the mandatory George W. Bush is under lots of “pressure” line is included too. Here now is a translaton of the editorial's opening paragraphs exclusively for our readers:

"Editorial: Somalia in America's South (by Andreas Petzold)

Dear stern-readers!

Hurricane "Katrina" has also devastated the civil society of the proud US-American democracy. Seemingly paralyzed for days, Americans followed how anarchy spread unchecked in New Orleans for days on end.

As in Somalia, armed gangs in pick-ups patrolled through the streets, as a police officer reported to a CNN reporter. Americans were painfully reminded what happens when the state acts too carelessly with its (monopoly on) authority and allows every citizen virtually unrestricted ownership of weapons.

At the same time, American citizens died because the most agile military power in the world was unable to quickly supply the victims of the storm with drinking water and nourishment. The tragedy seems like a perversion of the American societal philosophy that every man must be responsible for himself. The wealthy, predominantly white, got out, the rest were stuck.

Live on every channel was to be seen how fatal it can be when the government first takes responsibility for the lives of citizens in an emergency. A slender state that places its trust in privatization instead of governmental foresight is clearly not capable of enforcing the rights of the survivors to human dignity and freedom from violence in such situations." (emphasis ours)

One has to wonder when people will grow tired of the political exploitation of the tragic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina by Andreas Petzold and other media vultures. Mr. Petzold’s profound ignorance and bias on the United States is surpassed only by his slavish dedication to ideology and burning desire to see George W. Bush destroyed. When will the German people finally begin to reject these pathetic, condescending, politically slanted rants? When will something other than this tired, stupid, ugly drivel penetrate the walls of the German media's echo chamber when it comes to reporting on the United States and Bush?

Remember that heat wave?: Here's a good question: Where was the strong, organized central state and the caring, generous European social model while this was happening? Perhaps Mr. Petzold and Chancellor Schroeder could explain that before we talk any further about the implications of Katrina...

Update: And here is yet another article from "Die Zeit" online that echoes the identical theme...a big, socialized government would have reduced the tragic impact of Katrina. This is becoming a unifying battlecry for Germany's left as they march to election defeat at home. And the paper is currently running the following image on the top left corner of its site:

Update #2: Politically Incorrect has a good post on this topic as well. Stefan points out that Stern is also running its ads for this week's edition on television with the slogan: "We Show What Bush Didn't Want to See."

Update #4: Stern has a new article out on "Hero" Ray Nagin entitled, "Mayor Ray Nagin: Hero in Flooded-Out Hell Hole." How much do you want to bet Stern would have a different view of Nagin if he were a Republican and Bush ally? Stern's view of Nagin has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with political ideology.

Just this week, our colleagues at the Brussels Journal correctly noted that Hurricane Katrina is a natural disaster unimaginable in today's Europe. They wrote:

"America has been hit by a major natural disaster, the likes of which are simply unimaginable in Europe. Imagine a category 5 hurricane (the highest possible category) wrecking an area half the size of France (or Germany), thereby submerging and completely destroying a city the size of Marseille (or Cologne) including many, many other towns and villages. I wonder whether this would not lead to a temporary breakdown of law and order in France (or Germany) and whether unprecedented large scale rioting by the so-called “underpriviliged” would not follow."

If there is a single word that describes the horrific aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it would have to be "unprecedented." Yet German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder apparently does not see things that way. Regrettably, Mr. Schroeder found it necessary to exploit Hurricane Katrina to push his big government agenda during Sunday night's big election debate against challenger Angela Merkel.

"The American President himself, she (Merkel) could have said that, said that the way in which the aid efforts were proceeding was unacceptable. So it isn’t at all a criticism of him when one acknowledges that. And it is in fact so. And that, however, shows something else. That we are well advised to take a close look when it comes to the question of how much state we need and how much we don’t need. Because when I take a look at, how we, on the other side, surmounted such national catastrophes, then there are indeed noticeable differences. And I contend that this also is connected to the specific manner and way, as we say, for such situations, for people who are in urgent need, we need not a weak state but a strong state."

Noticeable differences in surmounting national catastrophes? How could Mr. Schroeder possibly imply that recent flooding in Europe (whether in recent weeks or in 2002) represented a "national disaster" comparable in the slightest degree to Hurricane Katrina? There can be, from a scientific, meteorological point of view (and from every other conceivable point of view) absolutely no comparison between Hurricane Katrina and the floods that struck Germany in 2005 and 2002.

Katrina was simply so much larger in scope than recent German floods that to speak of them in the same breath is sheer absurdity. Yet Gerhard Schroeder did exactly that in a major, nationally televised election debate watched by well over 20 million German viewers. The Chancellor first pointed to "noticeable differences" in Germany's response to recent floods versus the US response to Hurricane Katrina, clearly implying that the German response was far better and that the "difference" in response justifies a large state.

And here, again, is the central point. German authorities were not responding to a Katrina-like natural disaster in 2005 or 2002. Far from it. The storms that caused flooding in Germany, tragic as they were, were nowhere near the size, scope, impact and intensity of Katrina. Had German authorities been challenged by a truly comparable storm, an enormous category 5 hurricane that would have certainly ravaged enormous swaths of German territory, the situation would clearly not have ended nearly as well as it did during recent floods.

Roughly speaking: This is an approximate estimate of the size of Katrina compared to Germany. Ever seen a storm like this before Chancellor Schroeder? How would the German "state" have dealt with that? (Note: Germany may actually be a bit too large in our estimate)

One shudders to think what terrific havoc a massive storm on par with Katrina might wreak in Germany, a land filled with compact settlements. We can only hope that such a disaster never happens.

That said, the bottom line is that Mr. Schroeder could never have made the same ridiculous statements during the debate had a "national disaster" on the scale of a Katrina actually hit Germany during his term of office.Unfortunately, Mr. Schroeder found it necessary to exploit Katrina and the massive suffering and loss caused by the storm to further his big state agenda in an election that he is almost certain to lose. Why did he do it? Why have his Green coalition partners done the same? Well, sadly enough, a sort of sick Schadenfreude over the Gulf Coast tragedy has been the natural result of years of anti-American resentments prevalent among Germany's left-wing media and political elite. So Mr. Schroeder's comments on Katrina have gone largely uncriticized, and, if anything, have helped his election chances. Sad but true...

Schroeder: Playing the "Iraq-Peace" Card to the Bitter End

Oh...and by the way, Schroeder (again) proudly proclaimed his opposition to the Iraq war no less than three times during the debate, during his opening and closing statements, and at least once during the segment of the debate on foreign policy in which he also made his statements on Katrina. He also repeatedly emphasized his desire to position Germany as a respected power for peace in the world. (Of course one has to wonder how Mr. Schroeder's earlier push to lift the EU weapons embargo on Communist China meshes with that vision.) Nonetheless, German voters responded especially positively to that rhetoric as well, giving Schroeder a 71 to 19 advantage over Merkel in foreign policy during the debate.

On a positive note: Germany is sending some aid to disaster victims for which President Bush has already thanked Chancellor Schroeder. Of course Schroeder doesn't want things to get too friendly for fears it might hurt his election chances. Additionally, Bush obviously wasn't aware of Schroeder's debate comments or simply didn't care as he is currently more than busy attempting to manage a disaster recovery.

Update: In considering the opinions of Schroeder and others like him on Katrina, it is important to keep in mind Europe's disastrous handling of the 2003 heatwave in which well over 10,000 died. Read more on that here...

Endnote: Schroeder's comments on Katrina came about 1 hour, 8 minutes into the debate if you choose to watch it on your computer using the link we provided of the "full debate footage". You can skip ahead to that part of the debate by clicking on the foreign policy tab or "Die Außenpolitik" on the left-hand side. The comments are about two minutes into the foreign policy segment. Emphasis ours throughout this post.

We knew this would happen. We knew some sick member of Germany's extreme left-wing media would express their deep joy at the tragedy in New Orleans. Of course, we hoped that such twisted outbursts of Schadenfreude would simply never happen. But this is Germany. This is the same country where 31% of Germans under 30 believed the US government could have been behind September 11. So, in a way, we weren't shocked to see the following piece by Philipp Mausshardt in the Tageszeitung(taz). But the article, entitled "The True Catastrophe" is shocking nonetheless. The concluding paragraphs read:

"Yet joy and sympathy beat simultaneously in my chest. I am, for example, joyful at the moment that the latest hurricane catastrophe hasn't again hit some poor land, but instead the richest country in the world.

Yes, I even see in that a form of balancing justice for that which the inhabitants of that country have done to others through their war in Iraq.

I would, however, be even more happy, if I knew that only the houses of Bush voters and members of the Army had been destroyed.

I feel genuinely sorry for all the rest."

What an enlightened thing to think: It's just fine if people suffer, suffocate and starve, as long as they are political opponents or have a different worldview. It's just fine if people lose their homes and drown in their own feces, as long as they are members of the US military and red-state Bush voters. It isn't so bad that an entire city has been flooded and thousands killed and displaced because it is somehow "balancing justice" for this to be happening to the United States and not some poor nation.

And make no mistake, far more people in Germany share Mr. Mausshardt's views than anyone is willing to admit. The only difference is that Mr. Mausshardt is extreme enough to express his opinions openly. We have already heard more than one story of other Germans expressing similar views in private. Disgusting but true.

And think about this: Is it any wonder that sick people like Mausshardt continue to turn a blind eye to the world's most brutal dictators while they blast the United States? These are the very same people who celebrated Stalin's holocaust sixty years ago as the brave new world. These are the very same people who locked people with different political views away to rot in Stasi prison cells. These are the very same people who still can't admit that Germany is free and democratic today (and not one big Soviet colony) largely because of the men and women of the United States Military...ironically the very same people they wan't to see suffer and perish today.

And make no mistake: People like Philipp Mausshardt must be aggressively confronted when they write this sort of disgusting garbage. We at Medienkritik would like to hope that Mausshardt does not represent the majority in Germany. We honestly believe that he does not...but sometimes we are not always so sure about that...and that is what worries us.

Update: In the latest TAZ editorial by Michael Streck entitled "America Ashamed of Itself", the author writes what it is really about for the angry left...and it's not helping those in need:

"One week of the flood catastrophe make it even clearer: The United States is standing at a breaking point. "Katrina" will burn itself into the public conscience like "9/11" or Saigon. The storm not only destroyed America's picture of itself. It has, moreover, the power to end the Republican era sooner than expected. America is ashamed of itself." (emphasis ours)

Make no mistake folks. For the bitter left this is an enormous moment of opportunity. Or so they think. From the beginning this has been about the blame game. They hope that this horrible disaster will sweep them into power more quickly than they had hoped. Sad but true: At a moment when America needs to unify and overcome political divisions, many hope to exacerbate those divisions and the tragedy that is Katrina to their own political ends. The media feeding frenzy has only just begun, so buckle your seatbelts. And these are the same people who always criticize Bush for being a divider instead of a uniter...you may throw up now...

We have two more pieces on German environmental minister Trittin's remarks. The first is a commentary in Germany's largest daily BILD, the second is an e-mail we received from Andreas, a German who wants to stress his solidarity with the U.S.

As a result of our reporting on the Trittin remarks - linking Katrina-type hurricanes to the climate policy of president Bush - we have received a number of interesting e-mails. Here are two of them (now edited for spelling mistakes).

The first one comes from a German who wants to reassure Americans of the lasting friendship between Germany and the U.S. The second e-mail is from an American, who complains about the treatment she gets when she visits Germany. Judge for yourself...